 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
On this WP:WSS subpage, you can propose new stub types (please read the procedures beforehand!), as well as the reorganization and subdivision of existing stub types. You can also discuss anything else related to stubs on the talk page.
[edit] Proposing new stub types - procedure
Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to WP:AFC for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add {{Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles.
| Proposing new stub types | |
If you wish to propose a new stub category and template, please follow these procedures: - Check the List of stub types or under Cat:Stub categories to make sure that your proposed new stub does not already exist.
- List it at the top of the current month's section, under a header, like the ones shown (if any). Sign it with a datestamp (~~~~).
- Please bear in mind that a stub category isn't about the importance or notability of the topic!
- Find a good number[1] of stub articles, as many as you can, that will fit that template. You may use this tool to scan through categories. Each of these articles can be:
- currently marked with {{stub}};
- currently marked with another type of stub tag (in which case you should justify why your tag is better for the article than the current one);
- a stub whose categorisation is highly ambiguous or questionable;
- not marked as a stub.
- Others may do the same, if they so desire.
- 5 days after listing it here, if there is general approval or no objection, go ahead and create the new category and template following the format on Wikipedia:Stub. List the new stub type on the stub types list in an appropriate section. If consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing, the proposal will remain open until consensus can be reached.
- If you wish to propose a stub type which does not currently have 60 articles that could use it, you may propose an upmerged template in a similar way. An upmerged template would feed into currently existing stub categories until such time that there are enough stubs for a separate stub category. At that point a category for it may be separately proposed.
DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries or Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, and it is better to keep any discussion of such stub types in one place rather than splitting it between different pages. ^ . Good number means about 60 articles or more, or 30 or more if it is the primary stub type of a WikiProject, though this figure may vary from case to case. |
[edit] "Speedy creation"
A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria:
- S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.
- S2 - the creation of an upmerged national-level template for a subject in which other such national-level templates currently exist (e.g., X-bio-stub, X-hist-stub, or X-geo-stub, where X is the name of an internationally widely recognised country) or other instances where a clearly established pattern of similar subtypes exists. The proposed topic may not be controversial in scope.
List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.
[edit] Proposals, December 2009
Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.
If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.
[edit] NEW PROPOSALS
Over 600 and we usually split by position, any arguments? Waacstats (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that this is oversized and the fact that it seems we have 150+ Film producers in here, any one for a {{US-film-producer-stub}} - Cat:United States film producer stubs. Waacstats (talk)
looks like someone has been busy as this is over 1000 articles, of which 675 are Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives I propsoe we split these out in some way maybe Cat:Pennsylvania House of Representatives stubs {{Pennsylvania-HouseRepresentatives-stub}} unless anyone else has any ideas. Waacstats (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would {{Pennsylvania-Representative-stub}} be too ambiguous? It's a shame there isn't a US equivalent of the handy abbreviation "MP". Grutness...wha? 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Erk. I see the problem - that already exists for Pennsylvanian members of the US House. Some serious thought may be needed here... Grutness...wha? 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps {{Pennsylvania-PArepresentative-stub}} or {{Pennsylvania-PAHouse-politician-stub}}? Grutness...wha? 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given that we already have -Representative-stub for members of the US house I like the consistency of PArepresentative (or should it be PARepresntative). Waacstats (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- With the capital R, probably. And also with an e before the n ;) Grutness...wha? 03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently we have {{USSR-actor-stub}} used on over 60 articles and upmerged. Speedy for new cat? Waacstats (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Cat:France stubs is oversized, a good sort would probably get it below but so would this, we could possibly have a sports team cat but seen as we haven't split that cat by country I think we should just go with the wider option. Note it will already have subcats (sports-bio-stub, sports-venue and footyclub-stub) Waacstats (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Seems eminently sensible; I'm surprised it isn't already there when corresponding stub cats. exists for many less populous country categories (both senses intended). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently just one subcategory in the 20th century, Cat:American novelist, 1950s birth stubs, with around 500 in the main one ({{US-novelist-stub}}) (was over 600 yesterday- I'm tagging by decade rapidly). I've been going through tagging by decade template ({{US-novelist-1900s-stub}}, {{US-novelist-1910s-stub}}, etc.). Cat:American novelist, 1930s birth stubs, Cat:American novelist, 1940s birth stubs, and Cat:American novelist, 1960s birth stubs are eligible for speedy creation. I'm going through all of the stubs with {{US-novelist-stub}}, and classifying by decade of birth if it's in the article. I think that Cat:American novelist, 1970s birth stubs will be eligible by the time I'm through with the rest of my tagging, right now it has 53. Happy Holidays, Gosox5555 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Eligible for speedy creation by S1 and creating for the eligible cats. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Missing template, seeing as we already have a {{wrestling-bio-stub}}/Cat:Sport wrestler stubs, could be used to sort some of the articles in Cat:Sports stubs. Borgarde (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support trmpalte, category if it gets near 50 given subcat. Waacstats (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Missing template, seeing as we already have a {{waterpolo-bio-stub}}/Cat:Water polo biography stubs, could be used to sort some of the articles in Cat:Ball game stubs. Borgarde (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support tempalte, category if it gets close to 50 articels. Waacstats (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Over 60 stubs.Starzynka (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy support based on precedant of US. Waacstats (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Over 100 stubs.Starzynka (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, but with possible alternative. Given the way that Finnish geo-stubs are split - by province - it would make more sense for the next level of split to be by region. I'd definitely have no objection to Cat:Uusimaa geography stubs (which would include greater Helsinki), with two templates - {{Uusimaa-geo-stub}} and {{Helsinki-geo-stub}} both feeding it. Would that be acceptable? Grutness...wha? 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Support alternative per norm and Grutness. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
2000s single stubs are pretty big. I'm pretty sure this can eke out 60. (I used to have a username but now prefer to edit semi-anonymously, so.) 98.26.160.106 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support template, category if we get to 60 articles (We already have a similar type for albums).Waacstats (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Template needed, don't think it is viable as yet for a category...
- I thought we already had -struct-stub for all European countries so speedy support. Waacstats (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Upmerged to Cat:Baseball stubs to help organise the category a bit more. Borgarde (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, If this can be got to about 50 I think a category is in order with Cat:Baseball team stubs as a subcat.Waacstats (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Getting large and suggest splitting by decade of birth like Cat:United States baseball pitcher stubs. i.e.
...
w/ categories for large templates above 60. Borgarde (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, with categories following the precedant of the pitcherswhen the templates get to 60.Waacstats (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- While the category's large, I don't think it's overly large as to need a split. If we're just doing it because it might fit the number then that's not the reason to be doing so. Wizardman 17:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support because it's hard to navigate now (I disagree with Wizard). Gosox5555 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, the usual rule used on WP:WSS is that a category with 800 stubs is in need of a split, one with 600+ is worth considering. This one currently seems to have about 450, which isn't too bad, though it is more than the ideal size (around 60-200). Grutness...wha? 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
sorting from musicians and seems this could eek up towards oversized.
would all be viable. Waacstats (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Support, surprised we don't have the American one already! Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- We have {{US-guitarist-stub}} just haven't split that yet. Waacstats (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
sorting from musicians and seems this could eek up towards oversized.
would be a viable split. Waacstats (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Over 160 stubs tagged as such and many more that are not tagged. A severe (in my view) problem is that large numbers of them have been wrongly tagged with {{arcade-stub}}, when that is only for arcade video games. This one is a no-brainer. Honestly, cases like this beg for a third speedy creation rationale. I actually have time right now to sort all these stubs, but almost certainly will not in 5 days. I'm going to propose this anyway, but odds are that I will not do the actual stub sorting work after the 5 day mark, and no one else will either any time soon because the associated project has very few active editors and it's a fairly big and tedious job. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support stub cat and template. I diagree with the third cat of speedy, what one person thinks is a no-brainer is another persons noway (insert current favourite unrecognised country). Also sounds like Arcade-stub may be misnamed. Waacstats (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Side discussion: Just because we can easily imagine a really crappy implementation of a third speedy criterion does not mean that implementing one would necessarily be crappy. As for the arcade stuff, the entire "complex" if you will - main and secondary articles, categories, templates, all of it - is hosed. The entire thing needs to be forked into mechanical and video arcade games, with normal everyday disambiguation between them, really badly. It's as if we had only one article, category, etc., for motorcars and horse-drawn carriages, simply because the one was an outgrowth of the other. The confusion runs really deep, too - people from WP:VG actually attempted (at WT:PINBALL) to get WP:PINBALL to become a taskforce of the former. Like, uh, what?! Just because some forms of both are coin operated machines? Might as well make cue sports part of WP:VG too, then since some pool tables are coin operated. But I digress. It's been one of those days. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A third country that is on the cusp of being oversized: 798 stubs. Looks like Moldova is divided into 37 regions, though I note that two of them, Gagauuzia and Transnistria, are problematic because of their separatist leanings. Be that as it may, 37 templates is not too much, and some of them may already be at the threshold for separate categories (all of which should follow the naming style of the article links below):
I'd also suggest making diacritical-free redirects to any that need them. NOTE: I haven't checked these names to see whether dabbing is needed - there could also be a Leova, Belarus or a Rezina, Slovakia for all I know. There is a Călăraşi in Romania, which already has a stub template. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't checked which need dabbing but would be happy for any of the above to change to include MD. Also support diacritical-free redirects (can never get those pesky extra bits right.} Waacstats (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. Are there no wider regions in Moldova? Because I'd categorise them by region if they exist. Similar problem occurred with Slovenia.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Latvia problem
Cat:Latvia geography stubs is getting close to the need for a split, on the high side of 750 stubs. Unfortunately, Latvia changed its administrative regions just six months ago, and there are now 109 of them. Truth to tell, it was worse before July, with 111. In any case, Wikipedia is still struggling to convert all the articles on these divisions, and the idea of over 100 templates for one country is daunting, to say the least. It may be better to split by larger, more general regions, but my knowledge of Latvian geography is slim, to say the least. Any suggestions? I'm also going to add a request for input if I can find a relevant Wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a request for help at WP Latvia. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- WikiProject Latvia is not particularly active, I left the project some time ago, but I'll try to help you out. If no one else shows up and you want more opinions, perhaps it would be possible to get more help from Latvian Wikipedia, they have a project on parishes, which deals in part with consequences of the reform. Actually prior to reform we had 26 regions, so for this it would have been better. We could use Historical regions of Latvia, but these are not well defined, perhaps we could take some division based on these as a basis for their borders. Perhaps electoral districts of parliament election is the best established of these: there are five districts - Rīga, Vidzeme, Kurzeme, Latgale, Zemgale. Rīga includes only capital city, so perhaps it would be better to count it as part of Vidzeme. The rest of division according to law is:
- Vidzeme — Ādažu, Alojas, Alūksnes, Amatas, Apes, Babītes, Baldones, Beverīnas, Burtnieku, Carnikavas, Cēsu, Cesvaines, Ērgļu, Garkalnes, Gulbenes, Ikšķiles, Inčukalna, Jaunpiebalgas, Krimuldas, Ķeguma, Ķekavas, Lielvārdes, Līgatnes, Limbažu, Lubānas, Madonas, Mālpils, Mārupes, Mazsalacas, Naukšēnu, Ogres, Olaines, Pārgaujas, Priekuļu, Raunas, Ropažu, Rūjienas, Salacgrīvas, Salaspils, Saulkrastu, Sējas, Siguldas, Smiltenes, Stopiņu, Strenču, Valkas, Valmieras, Varakļānu, Vecpiebalgas novads, and cities of Jūrmala and Valmiera
-
- Latgale — Aglonas, Baltinavas, Balvu, Ciblas, Dagdas, Daugavpils, Ilūkstes, Kārsavas, Krāslavas, Līvānu, Ludzas, Preiļu, Rēzeknes, Riebiņu, Rugāju, Vārkavas, Viļakas, Viļānu, Zilupes novads, and cities of Daugavpils and Rēzekne
-
- Kurzeme — Aizputes, Alsungas, Brocēnu, Dundagas, Durbes, Grobiņas, Kuldīgas, Nīcas, Pāvilostas, Priekules, Rojas, Rucavas, Saldus, Skrundas, Talsu, Vaiņodes, Ventspils novads, and cities of Liepāja and Ventspils
-
- Zemgale — Aizkraukles, Aknīstes, Auces, Bauskas, Dobeles, Engures, Iecavas, Jaunjelgavas, Jaunpils, Jēkabpils, Jelgavas, Kandavas, Kokneses, Krustpils, Neretas, Ozolnieku, Pļaviņu, Rundāles, Salas, Skrīveru, Tērvetes, Tukuma, Vecumnieku, Viesītes novadu, and cities of Jelgava and Jēkabpils
-
- I am not sure thought, if it doesn't still leave a large amount of stubs under each category ~~Xil (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The bulk of the above mentioned Latvian geography stubs were created by yours truly, and I think the following suggestion for a split of the Latvian geography stub category perhaps could solve the problem:
Current administrative division of Latvia
Obsolete administrative divisions of Latvia
It makes no sense breaking stub categories into subcategories according to Historical regions of Latvia, since many of the historical parishes have either merged or changed name during the last century. Breaking stub categories according to historical regions of Latvia only makes sense for historical parishes and other historical administrative entities. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, it sounds like you haven't even bothered to look what I was talking about - the article, named "historical regions" by yourself, is about cultural regions of Latvia, which have formed in course of the history and are unlikely to change, they even are mentioned in the constitution of Latvia. Their borders are a bit fuzzy thought, so we should use some of the divisions based on them to define the borders. Planning regions are one such division, but I think they may change in the future (as needed for planing) and Riga region includes half of Vidzeme, it would be weird to read article on say Mazsalaca and see stub saying This Riga location article is a stub. I think electoral districts are closer to actual borders of the regions and less likely to change ~~Xil (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- First of all, I was not commenting on your post, hence the missing indent. Secondly, Mazsalaca would be "This article about a Latvian city is a stub" - the {{Latvia-city-stub}} template. An article about let us say Mazsalaca municipality would be "This Riga Region location article is a stub" - the {{RigaRegion-municipality-stub}} template. Your "unlikely to change" has already happened when it comes to administrative divisions (Planning regions of Latvia), "I think they may change... " is just your personal opinion, and "I think electoral districts are closer to actual borders of the regions" has more to do with elections to the Saeima (references) than administrative divisions. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Note that -as I said at WP Latvia - stubs are broken by subnational region, not by type of feature, so the idea of -municipality-, -city-, and -village-stubs is a non-starter. The four regions sounds like the best option - on average they'd have a couple of hundred stubs each, which is a good size for a split. Riga may have enough stubs of its own to split it out into a fifth category. That is, of course, assuming the regions are fairly stable. Even then, the regions don't have to be totally rigid - if there are templates for each of the 109 divisions, then stubs can be shifted from one category to another fairly readily, and any divisions can be given their own stub categories if there are very large numbers of stubs for them. It's just to sort the number in the main category down into easier to handle blocks by some fairly logical pattern. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well, when you put it that way... count me in. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- (addition) It will not be pretty though since all current and obsolete entities will be mixed in the same categories. I still prefer my above mentioned concept. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I wasn't answering to you either, I mostly consider indentation as a way to separate posts. The cultural regions have existed for centuries and can't be changed by some reform, there are several divisions based on them, none of which are administrative or well known to general public. The planning regions is but one of them. For our purposes we should pick one which is well established, preferably by law, and matches well with the approximate borders of the historical regions, so even if this division is changed we don't have to change anything. "Riga region" is ambiguous term, which can mean several things and therefore should be avoided (of coure there is no problem whithin borders of Riga itself, but when it includes towns almost 200 kilometers away, by Estonian border, it can rise questions) ~~Xil (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think it is manageable as it is at present. If at a later date it exceeds 1000 then I think we should readdress it. If we did decide to split I'd say that it would be possible to divide Latvia into geographical regions and maybe upmerge templates. Right now though I don't see a need to split, especially when it is so problematic. I'd support the creation of a Riga template though. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- All articles about obsolete Latvian administrative entities (parishes and districts) have to be rewritten anyway to reflect current status, those articles amount to at least half of the articles in question. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't object to idea of there being stub template for Riga, if it is for stuff within its borders, not half of the country. I suggested treating Riga as part of Vidzeme, because I'm not sure if there are that many articles related to geography of Riga. The former administrative units are a tricky question - do they still fall under geography or rather history ? Creating a separate template for them may be good idea, but it is not vitally important to do so. Perhaps we should look what stub templates obsolete entities in other countries have.
- P.S. BTW, if those articles still are not rewritten, perhaps it is possible to get some bot to place {{tl:update}} or similar in them to warn about the issue ? ~~Xil (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very probably, but you'd need to go to WP:Bot requests for that one - it's outside the scope of this project. Grutness...wha? 21:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know, that's why it's just a post script - as it is yes or no question I don't want to start new discussion about it elsewhere and everyone who would care about it probably are reading this. Anyway -as a member of this project you perhaps know what is done to articles on obsolete entities elsewhere, perhaps you have an idea what to do ? ~~Xil (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah I see -I misunderstood you, sorry. Former administrative units would be marked as geo-stubs - they may also get a hist-stub template, but that's optional. There certainly wouldn't be a specific stub only for use of former administrative regions, though - they'd simply get the regional geo-stub for whatever current region they are in or (if they are now split amongst several regions) they simply get the nation-geo-stub (e.g., latvia-geo-stub). For instance, Selonia would simply keep its current Latvia-geo-stub and Lithuania-geo-stub, since it is several current districts. Are the pre-July 2009 district boundaries still widely used? if so it might solve the stub-splitting problem, since this suggests there are only 26 of them - which would be a reasonable basis for a split. Grutness...wha? 22:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by widely used ? If it's just at level what people think, I'm not sure, because I have never lived in such a district, but I don't think I ever seen or heard anyone referring to them out official context, if you mean institutionally, even if they are they should fall into disuse soon. I don't see why you don't use the four regions I suggested - everyone knows them and it doesn't matter that much how we define them - people probably will figure out what stub template is best to use on their own anyway. I think Philaweb's idea is also fine (except for the bit where Riga gets all over the place), but if you say that it can't be done that way, what are we arguing about ? ~~Xil (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes - I'm simply batting a few ideas around. Certainly it's possible to do it with four or five regional categories, and it's probably best to split it that way. But it would have perhaps been easier to use 26 templates rather than 109 to feed them. If the 26 former districts aren't commonly used in colloquial or unofficial contexts, though, it's probably better to either make 109 templates or just four or five (one for each region) and have them feed regional categories. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think there could be a problem to populate 109 categories ~~Xil (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why no-one's suggesting that. The suggestions are: a) 109 templates feeding 4 or 5 categories; b) 109 templates feeding 26 categories; or c) 26 templates feeding 26 categories. But given that the 26 former districts aren't widely used as terms any more, option 9a) looks best. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then let's make {{Courland-geo-stub}}, {{Vidzeme-geo-stub}}, {{Zemgale-geo-stub}} and {{Latgale-geo-stub}}, to make {{Riga-geo-stub}} or not is up to you. As for images, probably using coats of arms is a good idea: Courland, Vidzeme, Zemgale, Latgale, Riga ~~Xil (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Closing in on 900 articles. Suggest upmerged templates by region (of which there are 26, listed at Regions of Tanzania). Any which reach threshold could get their own categories, in the form Cat:Foo Region geography stubs (many of the names are also used for cities or districts within the regions):
I think I've caught all the ambiguous ones. Note that the five Zanzibar and Pemba ones are already housed together in a subcategory, Cat:Zanzibar geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, looks like you caught all of them. Waacstats (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. Good catch. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Iran geography stub subcats
The following province-level templates are now used on over 60 stubs, and the parent is approaching the 1000 stub mark. Speedy?
Grutness...wha? 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy indeed. Waacstats (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Up over 750 (before clearing up) and it appears the following are viable
any comments. Waacstats (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Support. I'd also support the creation of new templates by all of the major countries. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The midfielder category is getting large and the defenders is not too far off. propose we split defenders, midfielders and strikers by decade of birth following the pattern of Brazil and England. Waacstats (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
{{Badminton-stub}} is not used on 60 articles but the template {{Badminton-bio-stub}} and Cat:Badminton biography stubs already exist. I propose this category for a natural category structure. Borgarde (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think 2 articles is a bit small even given the potential subcat. Waacstats (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - I usually use a rule of thumb of one subcat=10 to 15 articles. That would mean 45+ would be fine - 2 is a little thin, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This now has over 60 articles so by the standards stated above a parent cat is now viable. Borgarde (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
{{Squash-stub}} is not used on 60 articles but the template {{Squash-bio-stub}} and Cat:Squash biography stubs already exist. I propose this category for a natural category structure. Borgarde (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think 7 articles is a bit small even given the potential subcat. Waacstats (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Cat:Volleyball biography stubs already exists and this should naturally be a parent template to that. Borgarde (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support template, category if we get around 50 articles (given that we have a bio-stub cat) Waacstats (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created the template above upmerged to Category:Ball game stubs and I propose the following category structure:
- Category:Sports stubs by sport
- Category:Volleyball stubs
- Category:Volleyball biography stubs
- Category:Volleyball team stubs
As you can see right now we cannot group this bio and team stubs categories together, I did not even know the team cat existed. This is where parent cats come in handy, even with hardly any stubs in them. Think of it logically, if the biography and the teams cat did not exist yet, the parent cat (volleyball stubs) possibly would, then once they biography and team stubs get split off we don't simply delete the parent cat do we? So I really do not see what the problem is here size wise. Borgarde (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think we have enough given two categories and the fact that there are a few more articles in the Cat:Sport event stubs. Waacstats (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy politician splits
both of the following are viable form the currently upmerged templates
Waacstats (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Speedy of courset... Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
bothe the following are viable from the currnetly upmerged templates
This will require the currnet parent for each template to be renamed, are people happy for this to be done here/speedy SFD or shall i post on SFD once this is done with here. Waacstats (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
fed by template {{MLB-season-stub}}. Proposed for use on articles such as 1911 Major League Baseball season rather than a specific team. Waacstats (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The midfielder category is getting large and the defenders is not too far off. propose we split defenders, midfielders and strikers by decade of birth following the pattern of Brazil and England. Waacstats (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be sensible provided it is split consistently. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Cat:United States composer stubs currently contains 742 articles, and it's going to be growing - John Tasker Howard and I have developed a nice working relationship, and his book's chock-full of stuff about rather obscure people. Might I suggest the following split?
The former would probably be an upmerge, while the other two would be viable for categories of their own. It's worked for athletes - I don't see why it couldn't work for composers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I take it we're talking about by date of birth? Seems reasonable - the other option might be by genre of music, but that could get messy. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support idea but the only place I know we hace used by century templates if the italian painters where we have used {{Italy-painter-18thC-stub}} to avoid confusing -1900s- as being for those born between 1900 and 1909 as apposed to those born between 1900 and 1999. Waacstats (talk)
- Yeah, DOB's better (should have clarified, sorry.) Genre would get really confusing, really fast. And I'm fine with "18thC" as opposed to "1700s" - whichever's proper. Just going on what I think I've seen in the past (but then, I tend to be rather woolly-brained...) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Support per Waacs. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be speediable, but I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes looking over the list. Someone's been busy over the past couple of days, and it looks like {{Estonia-architect-stub}} is now past 60 articles. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly seems to be over 60 therefore support. Waacstats (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, looks fine to me. Gosox5555 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Speedy. Good work from the "someone". Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Missing template, upmerge to Cat:Sports stubs, if it reaches above 60 to split into Cat:Softball stubs. Borgarde (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support also may be worth having a {{Softball-bio-stub}} while we are at it, according to catscan there are 118 softball players with stub articles. Waacstats (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose that the Physics Stubs Category be split even further into a Sub-Category for Physics Theories. I noticed that among stubs in this category, there are quite a few theories in just the first 10 or so lines of the page. This would help decrease the backlog in the category. The template would be {{physics-theory-stub}}. Creating this would help separate the physics articles so people can find things they want to work on easier, helping Wikipedia as a whole. Hamtechperson Repeater 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Pedagogue stub
I just discovered this stub. In Wikipedia, the articles in this category are classified under educationist. There is no reason to classify the stubs differently. Besides, according to Webster's, pedagogue is someone who educates: these are classified in Wikipedia as educators. Educationists are, also according to Webster's the persons who specialize in the theory of education. The discussion page of the stub indicates that pedagogue stub is wrong. It is therefore suggested that the category be changed to educationist stub.Afil (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This page is primarily for new stub types - renames are handled at WP:SFD. I've listed this category and template for discussion there. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a whole class of food that does not have its own stub set. Right now we only use {{food-stub}}. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This was proposed ages ago but never sorted. Support. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- So it would be OK if I went and did this? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You've got the OK from me.... I'd imagine the others don't have a problem with it... Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
template {{India-footy-bio-stub}} is used on more than 60 articles, any objections to speedying category. Waacstats (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There are currently over 40 stubs which are about prehistoric primates. I recommend a double-upmerged stub template (into Cat:Primate stubs and Cat:Prehistoric mammal stubs) for now - and very likely this will eventually have enough stubs using it to make it a new category. The current situation is that pages which belong to this stub cat intersection may be categorized only in one (such as Australopithecus bahrelghazali is only in Cat:Primate stubs, and Batodonoides vanhouteni is only in Cat:Prehistoric mammal stubs); this template will make it easier to keep track of the size of the potential category Cat:Prehistoric primate stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support template, and if this passes 60 then support category as well. Waacstats (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Parent category (Cat:Cue sports biography stubs) is oversized (Cat scan), and far more than 60 who are not sorted already into something more specific (Category:Snooker biography stubs and subcats thereof) are pool players in particular and exclusively (i.e. not snooker, carom or English billiards players). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support another good split, though if 114 is oversized then we have some really serious problems. Waacstats (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification: It's oversized for a topic area with only two continually active editors (me and Fuhghettaboutit). :-) There are a few regular snooker editors, too, but they basically never touch the rest of the cue sports stuff. A couple of them probably are interested in non-snooker, non-pool cue sports like English billiards so this might help rein in some of their attention. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - but with name clarification. When I saw this name I wondered what need there was for a pool-bio-stub when we had one for swimmers. Pool doesn't help matters. Cat:Pool (cue sports) biography stubs, to match Pool (cue sports), would solve the category problem, but I'm not sure what we'd call the template... Grutness...wha? 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Maybe {{pool-cs-bio-stub}} or some variation thereof? --Hamtechperson Repeater 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hamtechperson, if "cs" means anything to anyone, it will probably be "computer science". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Grutness, one (your :-) anecdotal case of momentary confusion with swimmers (Really? It sounds like you're joking!) doesn't really make for a strong argument of ambiguity. I occasionally mistake a category for something other than it was intended for, but rarely come to the conclusion that the category should be renamed after I figure it out (cf. PEBKAC). Further, I cannot imagine that swimming pool installation and cleaning is ever going to be a notable enough occupation to have a category here, nor is any way to categorize people by their relationship to naturally occurring pools of water, nor by pool betting, so "pool" really is not ambiguous in this context (otherwise Category:Pool and its subcats would've been CfR'd a long time ago. Also, the article name at Pool (cue sports) has been subject to very recent dispute, and is only disambiguated because non-biographical meanings of "pool" do (arguably) need disambiguation in articlespace. If you really, really want to have a preemptively disamgibuatory category name for this, then I think the matter should actually be taken up at CfR, since Category:Pool (cue sports) biography stubs is going to logically necessitate the conforming rename of the parent category to Category:Pool (cue sports) players and concomitant renames of its subcats, its parent cat and its other subcats, all of which falls clearly outside the scope of the stubsorting project. Even if that is pursued, there isn't really any reason to have the template be anything other than {{pool-bio-stub}}. All that said, I'd still oppose the long version of the cat name, since the proposed stub cat won't be a subcat of anything but Category:Pool players and Category:Cue sports biography stubs, preventing any possible confusion with swimmers or jacuzzi repairmen or wallowers in puddles or betting-pool fans or whatever. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not joking at all - my first thought when I saw Cat:Pool biography stubs was Duncan Laing (though that's perhaps because pool as a sport is less popular here than in some countries). The point remains, though, that if the article is at Pool (cue sports), then the categories - both permcat and stubcat - should match it if there is any possible confusion. There is no possible confusion with Cat:Pool players - you don't play a swimming pool - so there's no problem with it and its subcategories remaining as they are. There is, though, with Cat:Pool biography stubs, since you can have a biography relating to any form of pool. I'm pretty sure we've had similar problems in the past relating to just this sort of case, and relating to the more inclusive naming of stub categories to include coaches, managers, and the like. I don't see any reason why this one should be different. As to the template, I don't think -cs- will do anything other than add more confusion. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no one's proposed a solution that works for both cat. and tag, and this wasn't posted as an objection, only a qualified support (and after the 5 day mark), so I've created them as-proposed. The sky won't fall, and they can always be renamed later if ambiguity actually turns out to be a real problem with them (as noted, I would imagine this would affect the entire series of categories, from Category:Pool on down). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- For what its worth, just looking at this page, when i saw the heading I thought "'pool' is an odd way to describe swimmers,. maybe because it's shorter?" 129.42.208.186 (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Parent category (Cat:Marsupial stubs) is oversized, scan shows 141 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support seems to be a viable split, though I would hardly call under 400 oversized. Waacstats (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This stub category has gone beyond 400 pages. I propose splitting off the shrews in the following way:
- Cat:Soricomorpha stubs/{{soricomorpha-stub}} - current
- Cat:Shrew stubs/{{shrew-stub}} - scan shows 346 pages for this cat and its proposed subcats
- Cat:White-toothed shrew stubs/{{whitetoothed-shrew-stub}} - scan shows 196 pages for this cat
- Cat:Red-toothed shrew stubs/{{redtoothed-shrew-stub}} - scan shows 128 pages for this cat
I think this split should be done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support seems to be a viable split. Waacstats (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Over 600 articles propose {{Netherlands-wintersport-bio-stub}} and Cat:Dutch winter sports biography stubs to allow a bit more breathing space. Waacstats (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
speedy? given that {{Laos-politician-stub}} is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ofcourse. Proposing them here is a formality.--TM 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Support and all those below. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
speedy? given that {{Norway-politician-1970s-stub}} is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
speedy? given that {{Norway-politician-1790s-stub}} is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
speedy? given that {{Poland-chess-bio-stub}} is passed the 60 mark?Waacstats (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals, November 2009
Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.
If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.
Nearing 1000,. Oversized. Recommend we create new templates by district and upmerge into regional categories until viable. The confusing thing is that some districts may overlap regions... Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Propose:
- Makes sense -the Azores and Madeira have already been split out. The overlapping may be a problem though... Grutness...wha? 23:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given there are so many articles and relatively few districts is it worth seeing which if any districts are viable. and then if we still have a size problem then upmerge to regions? Waacstats (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Template is now used on over 60 articles - time to split out the cat, I'd say. Especially as I'm sure there are a few more lurking about - I've just added the template to four or five articles that didn't have it previously. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Himalayan 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- And from me too - this one's speediable S1. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Category is approaching 600 and there seems to be more than enough articles for a by country split. Propose creating upmerged templates for those with under 60 articles and corresponding categories for those over 60.--TM 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Support templates by country and split when viable. Himalayan 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As 2010 is fast approaching, and more and more novels are known to be released in the upcoming year (many of the articles are already created), I think it would be good to create the support structure now for what will inevitably be a large category. They would have the same basic structure as Cat:2000s science fiction novel stubs and {{2000s-sf-novel-stub}}. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support template only for now. Category when there are 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's very likely there are 60. I haven't had time to go through the 200 or so articles in Cat:2000s science fiction novel stubs to see which ones should actually be in Cat:2010s science fiction novel stubs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support template definitely, if there are 60 then I also support speedying of a category with no further proposal necessary - the template can remain upmerged while sifuting is going on and be switched over to a new category with no fuss if the threshold is reached. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've create the stub and placed it on a few novel stub articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like about half of the 100-odd stubs in Cat:Oceanian sports venue stubs are in New Zealand, which suggests that a separate template at least would be a good idea. Catscan suggests there are 58 stubs, and I doubt it would be too difficult to find another two - so a separate category might be worthwhile, too. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS-I found two more which weren't marked, so there are 60 NZ ones and still 40+ left for the parent Oceania category. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support as per mulitple precedants. Waacstats (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Himalayan 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Most are not stub sorted... Starzynka (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually it might be worth checking to see what other templates we are missing by country for writers, especially Europe. Himalayan 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Potential category would contain more than 60 stubs based on current upmerging. Speedy?--TM 14:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (nods) Grutness...wha? 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks OK. Himalayan 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(or {{Cue-sports-videogame-stub}} if we want to be longwinded) Don't have 60 yet, but something like 1/3 of all cue sports non-bio stubs (that's a separate stubcat) are video games. Driving me nuts (I'm pretty much the only one who ever bothers looking at cue sports stubs, except maybe for User:Fuhghettaboutit, and I go looking for articles to watch and work on that are more important to the goals of WP:CUE). As for 60, there are certainly way more pool/billiards/snooker video games than that. I've noted at least 10 new ones released this year alone, for everything from Wii to mobile Java. Their swamping of Cat:Cue sports stubs is only going to increase. Finally, it would be helpful to have these all in one place so I could point the video games WikiProject at them. Gamer editors work on these articles much, much more than cue sports editors do; in fact, I'm fairly certain that I'm the only regular cue sports editor to have ever touched a single one of these articles! The new stubcat would be a sub-cat of both the cue sports and relevant video games ("sports" and "simulation"?) stub cats., I suppose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Still finding more of them; many are not even classified under cue sports at all yet, just video games. I'll report findings when I get a chance, maybe afternoon (US Mountain Time) on Sun. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: 32 33 stub articles found for this category so far, now all classified in Cat:Cue sports stubs, out of 75 total stubs in the category, plus 2 more in the Cat:Snooker stubs subcategory. I have yet to even scratch the surface of looking in non-stub categories of existing sports, simulation, etc. video game articles for pages that should be tagged as stubs but which are not. There are also 2 or 3 redirects to article sections on videogames that are in articles on other videogames (preceding games in a series) that should be their own articles, plus there are 25 more redlinks to should-be stubs of this sort, listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Wanted cue sports miscellany#Video games – a list that could probably be tripled. Counting all of this stuff together, it's about 59 or 60, without yet looking for stubs that aren't stub tagged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Revised 13:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: I have identified, but not yet catalog[u]ed close to two dozen new cue-sports-oriented Wii games and game accessories that can (surely will, given Wii's popularity) yield additional stub articles forthwith, just tooling around on Amazon.com for 10 mintues, and found a number of PC and PS games that were not yet listed in our to-do list. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward "waterway" as that would include canals and locks as well as rivers. There are currently about 72 river stub articles in Cat:Rivers of Japan and its subcats. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose in proposed form. We deliberately don't have stub types for specific natural landforms - this has been a long-standing rule in stub-sorting. Rivers are simply marked with the relevant geo-stubs, in the same way that mountains, lakes, seas, hills, beaches, and valleys are. Canals, however, are another matter, since they're man-made and therefore technically struct-stubs rather than geo-stubs (the line between the two is a bit blurry, I'll admit). The correct name for that would be {{Japan-canal-stub}} - which, as the name suggests, would deliberately exclude rivers. Grutness...wha? 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um...why? How are landforms any different than any other type of thing that gets a stub? They are physical objects (albeit very large in most cases); they are just as real as a state, country, car, building, person, or anything else that has a stub. Being able to sort them makes it easier to find specific types of stubby articles needing work. Additionally, I don't remember ever reading a rule anywhere that says stub types for natural landforms are verboten. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- You will if you check earlier versions of WP:STUB (e.g., here), which used to list rivers and mountains specifically as types not split out. These examples were removed when the page was streamlined (no-one was proposing those sorts of splits, so it seemed unnecessary to mention them, and removing them shortened the page). As to why, there are several reasons:
- splitting by nation then region means that all stubs get covered and split. Splitting out individual features will inevitably leave a small number which can't be split because there aren't enough of a specific type of feature, so it's not as neat from that point of view;
- it's more likely that with geography, editors will be more likely to know about their local geography than a specific type of natural feature worldwide, so splitting by region makes sense. This is less likely to be the case with structures, since certain types of construction and factors relating to use are likely to be used worldwide, so knowledge about these will be at least as useful, of not more so, than local knowledge;
- with many countries, there is such weighting towards stubs of a specific type of geographic feature that splitting stubs in this way makes no sense - splitting mountain-stubs out of switzerland-geo-stubs, for instance, would be of no use, since so many of the stubs are on mountains (this is also the reason why towns, villages, and cities aren't split out, since so many geo-stubs are related to inhabited places).
- it would also suggest that each country should have separate stub types of the same sort (which is what we're trying to achieve with a lot of stub types), so we'd be likely to either need such unlikely, little-used (or unused) stub types as Netherlands-mountain-stub and Mongolia-island-stub - either that or we'd end up with an overall Mountain stubs (or Island stubs) category which could never have everything permanently subdivided by nation. In contrast, all countries, no matter how small, have geography of some sort, so a standard geo-stub split by country again makes sense.
- This is one of a number of types of stub-sorting which initially looks sensible, but which isn't as useful as it seems to editors or to stub sorters (e.g., sorting sportspeople by team, people by subnational region). Grutness...wha? 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree with much of the reasoning behind this undocumented decision (especially the part where you indicate that all countries would basically be required to have a standard set of stubs even if they didn't have a particular feature (such as mountains in The Netherlands), but since this project maintains a de facto iron-fist stranglehold over stubs, my opinion on the issue won't really make any difference. I'll just drop it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Grutness to a point. However I draw the line if there is an actual group of editors actively working specifically on say Japanese rivers and would find it more useful to work through the stub categories that way. In my view whatever helps get the articles de stubbed is the most important. If you can show me that a group of editors are working specially on Japanese rivers or lakes I might support. The problem of course though is that is will interfere with territorial geo structuring and in most cases is probably not a good idea as Grutness said with Switzerland etc.. Himalayan 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with Himalayan Explorer. Cf. the similar cue sports video game proposal elsewhere on this page (I haven't been able to dig up 60 stubs yet, but putting them in their own bin would genuinely help both the cue sports and video games projects keep track of and improve the stubs on either side of the proposed divide). I wouldn't support a split in either case just to have a split for the heck of it, only if there was some evidence that it would be genuinely useful to active editors. While I (early on) had my own disagreements with the stub sorting "project" (I think it might as well just be called a WP process now, like the XfDs and RFA, i.e. Wikipedia:Stub sorting) and how it did things, I think "stranglehold" is a bit much. Grutness and other long-timers here have a method to their "madness", and it really does help keep stubs and their management viable and smooth. That said, H. Explorer has a prevailing point, which basically is grounded in our WP:IAR policy: If bureaucracy genuinely gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, go around it. All that said, it's been my experience that few citations to IAR are actually necessary (discussion usually works better), and process is usually on-target provided it is flexible enough to handle outlying odd cases (which in my experience WPSS largely has been). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I've tried the IAR approach, and it never works. This project just tags the categories and templates for deletion and says they didn't approve them. The main issue I have here is that one project basically controls all stubs on Wikipedia, and woe be unto any editor who disagrees with them. It's very frustrating to have them basically tell me that it's their way or the highway in some cases. I don't mind them providing a basic structure for the creation of stubs, and offering support for keeping things organized, but it frustrates me that they often refuse to allow a project or other group to create a stub which would be useful to them just because they either don't like it for some reason or another, or they say that a project shouldn't have exclusive stubs (even though creating a stub for a project to use hardly prevents another editor from working on the stub). I'm not trying to be mean here, just to explain my sometimes frustration with this whole process. It often seems to be process for process' sake. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand the frustration, but in order for stub-sorting to work across Wikipedia it is vital that there is some sort of weak, partial control. And it's not as if the "control" exercised by WP:WSS is particularly strong - 90% or more of the stubs created out of process are simply tidied and kept - it's only if there are problems with them that SFD comes into play. Similar forms of control (often muich stronger) are exercised in numerous other areas of Wikipedia. And let's face it, stub sorting isn't the only place where on the face of it there seems to be at times a lack of logic to what is and isn't allowed. There is logic there if you look more deeply, but you often need to examine the whole system overall to grasp why some things are done the way they are. It's worth remembering that stub types aren't for use by specific wikiprojects - they are for use across wikipedia by all editors. Realistically, there's no reason why any wikiproject should care one way or another whether there are specific stub templates for its area of expertise. If a Wikiproject wants to tag its articles, there's nothing to stop it doing just that with a talk-page banner - that's the entire reason that those templates exist. They are far more use to individual projects that stub templates, since they enable all articles relating to a subject to be tagged, not just stubs. The main reasons for stub templates to exist at all is that the majority of wikiupedian editors aren't members of wikiprojects and may still be looking for articles to edit. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This would upmerge to Cat:Asian protected area stubs until it had enough to have its own category. There are at least two other national-level stubs here as well. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I should note that I counted around 35 articles within just the category above which would use this stub, and I'm sure I can find others not currently in that category, too. Japan has quite a number of national and quasi-national parks which are not in this category, and many of those articles are currently stubs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me - probably speediable, in fact. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Speedily created. If I find more than 60 articles that apply, is it okay to create a category Cat:Japan protected area stubs to hold them? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't see any reason why not. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This category currently has over 1200 articles in it. I propose the following:
- {{Anime-magazine-stub}} and {{Manga-magazine-stub}} (which would redirect to the first one) templates to sort into Cat:Anime and manga magazine stubs. There are about 70 articles I've found which could use this template, and there may be others I've not found yet.
- {{Anime-bio-stub}} which would sort into Cat:Anime industry biography stubs. Biography stub articles in Cat:Anime industry would be targeted with this stub. There are about 135 articles which would be affected.
There may be others, too, as I'm trying to find other commonalities between the articles remaining. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but with amended teml;ate names - the standard names for the top two woiuld be {{Anime-mag-stub}} and {{Manga-mag-stub}}. Rhere would have to be careful wording of the bio one, BTW, so that people don't think it's for anime characters! On that subject, would an anime-fict-char-stub be useful? Grutness...wha? 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is already a {{anime-char-stub}} (around since 2005) which covers that. I'm fine with "mag" instead of "magazine" as it's shorter and therefore easier to type. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've created {{Anime-mag-stub}} and {{Manga-mag-stub}}, along with Cat:Anime and manga magazine stubs. I sorted 115 articles into that category, too, so there were quite a few more than I originally thought. I'll work on the other one ({{Anime-bio-stub}}) tomorrow. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is there potential for an {{Anime-company-stub}} or {{Anime-convention-stub}}? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly - but they're better proposed under a new heading on the current month's proposal page rather than tacked onto a proposal which is largely resolved. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Created {{Anime-bio-stub}} and working on populating Cat:Anime industry biography stubs. Up to about 20 at the moment, many more to come. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Indian politician stub cat is too large at present. Even after creating {{DMK-politician-stub}} and {{AIADMK-politician-stub}} to take care of a lot of the Tamil Nadu politicians, another 200 or so remain in this master cat. This split will identify them to the right level. The first division is large enough currently to be a cat, but the other have the potential, so I'm proposing placing the second and third to the first's category and the fourth to the INC cat as that party has been merged. -SpacemanSpiff 02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, this proposal is connected to a recent discovery listed at WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha? 03:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with Spaceman and support the creation of PMK and MDMK stubs. I am not sure if TMC stubs are necessary since the party had originally branched off from INC and is defunct now and merged largely with INC again. --CarTick 15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Which is why I'm suggesting that we keep it in the INC category. Just a different template. -SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's been a couple of weeks and I don't see any objections to the first three, can I go ahead and create the first three? -SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. TMC is the only one where there's any chance that disambiguating might be needed, and adding the "India-" to the front of it rules out all the other possibilities at TMC. Go for it :) Grutness...wha? 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A generic stub for Basque related stubs. At the moment there is only Basque-geo-stub for geography related articles. The search tool returns 84 stubs for a search on Basque though I suspect there are more than that and more are of course being created.
It's needed because the territory is split between France and Spain but constitutes a cultural sphere distinct from the French/Spanish cultural sphere. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- That (the national split) is exactly the reason why it doesn't exist -stub types for ethnic groups or for cultures are almost always arranged on a purely "internationally-accepted-national-boundary" basis. Groups and cultures that stradddle borders are arranged as part of the nation-specific stubs in which those cultures exist. That is why, for instance, Basque-geo-stub is specifically for the Basque Country of Spain, and is not used for places within the Basque sphere of influence in southwestern France. While I can see the point of having stubs arranged on cultural grounds, it dos lead to inevitable problems of multiple stubbing, and often to case of edit-warring over which stub should be on an article. If there is a Basque-specific WikiProject, I'd suggest that using a talk-page assessment template might be a more useful option than a specific stub type anyway. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Although the main political articles touching on the Basque region are subject to edit warring, I've encountered it on few culturally related articles and as far as cross-national stub categories of stateless peoples go, there's Romani-stub for one, which is about as multi-national as you can get.
- I did try and read the background docs for stubs but I must confess not seeing anything that says that but I'll assume you have more experience in this. So you're suggesting that for a page like Baserri I use the architecture stub on the front page and use the talk page to link it to toe Basque WikiProject? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - that would make sense - and you'd almost certainly find the banner assessment template far more useful that a stub template anyway, since it can be used for all articles relating to the Basques, not just stubs. Romani-stub is the one exception, since the Roma cover so many different nations. Where a people is split by one boundary, though, we try to avoid it (no Tamil-stub,. Inuit-stub, Sami-stub, Kurd-stub or the like). I agree that it is a bit of a problem, but for the ease of stub-sorting it does make sense. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hm ok... what's the procedure for removing this proposal then? Do I delete it off here or does it get closed routinely at the end of the month? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just leave it - it'll be closed at some point soon. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiplex music was prevalent in the 1970s in the Philippines as a music sold in two formats: (1) music with vocals; and (2) music only without vocals of the same song. The music would be available as a cassette tape recording and normally sold with a hardcopy print of the song lyrics that would be read by the user as he would sing-along while playing the tape with format (2).
The cassette tape could contain a number of music that would come in those pairing formats with an accompanying booklet of hardcopy song lyrics that could be considered the successor of 'song hits' that were popular in the 1960s.
- Not quite sure what you're asking for here - you've headed this with a category, but the name looks more like one for a template, and what you've written underneath looks like the start of a stub article (in which case, you don't want this page, you want WP:AFC, as was explained in the section of this page you would have opened to add this here. If you're looking for a template or category, I'd have to oppose it unless it can be shown that there are 60 stubs on this topic (I can't find any at all). Grutness...wha? 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
upmerged template {{Yukon-politician-stub}} has 60+ articles, spedy category? Waacstats (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good as usual--TM 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
pushing 700 and another one that looks like it will grow yet further. We could go with Cat:Golf tournament stubs \ {{Golf-tournament-stub}} but as most of the remaining articles are tournaments I suggest we also add something along the lines of Cat:Men's major golf championship stubs fed by {{USOpen-golf-stub}}, {{TheOpen-golf-stub}}, {{MastersTournament-golf-stub}} and {{PGAChampionship-golf-stub}}. Waacstats (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable - though is there a less potentially ambiguous name than TheOpen-...? Would BritishOpen-... offend golf purists? Also it's probaboly worth noting that most of the world talks of the US Masters rather than the Masters Tournament, so perhaps USMasters-,..., as a redirect at least, would be useful. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just went with the article titles but have no problems with those as redirects or as the main templates with the others as redirects. Waacstats (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This is quite at the moment but will grow again next season, we have already split out the Olympic medalists and are still over 600 articles, propose that we split by event, templates first and categoris only if they reach 60
Waacstats (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
upmerged template {{Russia-boxing-bio-stub}} with over 60 articles. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
upmerged template {{Romania-footyclub-stub}} with over 60 articles. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Category and template {{SanFranciscoGiants-season-stub}} should be over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Starting to grow again up to 650 articles propose we split out the euros by upmerged template creating
and any {{foo-chess bio-stub}} for all European countries that we need to. Waacstats (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support as long as you addf the hyphen in the template foo-chess-bio-stub :) Grutness...wha? 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
over 700 articles, propose the following
both should be comfortably over 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Knocking on the door of 800 propose we split by tour unless anyone else has a better idea.
both would be over 60. Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As per usual split by position
I would expect all to make it to 60+. Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
All are over 600 and would suggest splitting by position as with Hungary above, templates first and categories iff they reach 60 (might struggle with the goalkeepers). Waacstats (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Category oversized (895) currently fed by upmerged templates. The following are all viable based on those existing templates
speedy? Waacstats (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Upmerged template {{Germany-tennis-bio-stub}} has 60+ articles. Speedy? Waacstats (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Upmerged template {{Vermont-NRHP-stub}} has over 100 articles propose category. Waacstats (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support; this is an easy one. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Stub Type: iTunes Albums
This is a semi-proposal for general discussion - a new stub type might not really be needed. iTunes is releasing special compilations of audio files that could be considered albums, some of which are starting to appear in their own WP articles. Here are some examples:
Bob Dylan: The Collection
The Complete Stevie Wonder
There is no corresponding stub type for this in the Albums section of the stub sorting list. A new stub type might be necessary... IF nobody categorizes a stub article under the appropriate genre or other subcategory. Then a new stub type of this nature wouldn't be necessary. On the other hand, we can probably assume that iTunes will expand this new marketplace, which might give us many new articles requiring accurate stub classification rather than just "Album" which is disdained by Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums. Consider this to be a "what if" proposal for a new stub type that may or may not be necessary depending on how things turn out. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- ISTR we do have {{Compilation-album-stub}}, which would probably cover this, at least until such time as there are enough of these to consider something separate, and then it might be better to split the compilations by genre than by means of distribution or medium. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I can agree with that. Separate stubs for compilations by genre would be a good idea, but we can wait until some sort of critical mass is reached at Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums. Thanks for your input. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Category will contain 65 stubs as of a count just now with obvious room for much expansion.--TM 13:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nods. Is this covered by existing by-nation or by-continent templates? Grutness...wha? 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Lebanon, Iran, the Philippines, China and Turkey all have their own templates. Some are still covered by the Asia- stub. We also need to be create a double-upmerged {{Israel-basketball-team-stub}} for the Europe and Asia categories. Turkey would also be double-upmerged.--TM 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals, October 2009
Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.
If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.
Encompassing category which would be home to around 100 stubs and several subcategories. Speediable?--TM 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be somewhere around 200 articles tagged with {{NewHampshire-NRHP-stub}}, and more are being created; perhaps it's time to break the category out into one of its own. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support; it's viable. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Through some serious recent expansion, this category contains just a hair under 1,000 articles and exactly 0 templates. Propose speedy creation of templates for the 36 States of Nigeria with the expectation that all 36 will soon have enough for categories of their own.--TM 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support, with the caveat that some may need dabbigh (e.g., {{EdoNG-geo-stub}}, since Edo's also the former name of Tokyo) The following would probably be the correct names for templates:
- I'd also support categories (in the form Cat:Foo State geography stubs) for any that reach 60. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support plenty of missing LGAs too. Himalayan 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The sooner we create the templates and notify the creator of the hundreds of new articles, the easier the sorting job will be.--TM 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Meant to earlier, but forgot, sorry. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A quick scan reveals 70-odd articles tagged with {{Austria-painter-stub}} - time for the cat to be made? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That is speediable.. Himalayan 22:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose the creation of {{Bulgaria-company-stub}}, upmerged to Cat:European company stubs and Cat:Bulgaria stubs. Likewise {{Albania-company-stub}}, upmerged to Cat:European company stubs and Cat:Albania stubs. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC) A while back I proposed to create company templates by country.... I never know what gets done around here anymore.... Himalayan 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not desperately needed yet, with some 460 stubs, but it's probably worth splitting these, either by location or type of telescope (radio/optical). Given that a considerable number of observatories have both radio and optical equipment, it's probably best to split by country. The following is already category-worthy, and would greatly reduce the load in the main category:
No others have more than a dozen or so stubs, so a split by continent (possibly with by-country templates) seems more appropriate elsewhere - although many of these stubs aren't in the appropriate category in the Cat:Astronomical observatories by country tree. Note, BTW, the addition of the word "astronomical" in the category title - this matches the parent permcat, and I've nominated Cat:Observatory stubs for renaming at SFD to match it. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
China garden stub. Cat:Asian garden stubs Starzynka (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- That would be {{PRChina-garden-stub}}, not PRC-. Support as an upmerged type. We may haqve problems at some point with a category name given that "Chinese garden" is a specific type of garden. As such, it would probably be better to use "Foo garden stubs" rather than "Fooian garden stubs" for individual country category names, but that's definitely open to debate. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
...is currently empty. However, I've noticed a number of new articles on Cambodan films coming down the pike. CatScan reveals 32 articles of 2000 bytes or less in Category:Cambodian films. Furthermore, there are 26 in Category:Thai films, 37 in Category:Indonesian films, and 16 in Category:Malaysian films. Might I suggest the following?
All uploading into Cat:Asian film stubs for the moment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted, definate support. Himalayan 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
750 stubs, oversized. Create templates by Districts of Serbia?
I'd recommend a category split by statistical region although like Bulgaria and SLovenia I think they are informal historical regions:
Again a little bit of detective work will be needed to organize this way.
Himalayan 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Category contains just under 800 articles. Suggest creating upmerged stubs which feed into continental categories, e.g. Cat:African government stubs etc. Thoughts?--TM 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact I would go as far to make a bold proposal of creating templates by every country and upmerging regionally, beginning with Cat:African government stubs etc. I'd support say a {{Nigeria-government-stub}} etc and upmerge. Himalayan 13:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, that is what I meant. Seeing no objections, I'll begin this large project.--TM 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Support, you don't know this Rosie but one of those articles is about my aunt.. Himalayan 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very cool :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No Chinese railway tag?Starzynka (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- {{PRChina-rail-stub}} and {{Taiwan-rail-stub}} would be the names for two potential stubs ("China" on its own is only used for history-related stub types with lots of pre-1949 articles). The Taiwan one exists, but one for the mainland would be useful, IMO, even if only as an upmerged type. Grutness...wha? 22:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be plenty of these dotted around the various geology, regional geology, and geography categories. Certainly enough for a template, and probably enough for a category. Note the naming is a little diffuicul;t - the article is at Palaeogeography, but the permcat is at Cat:Paleogeography. A redirectto the template seems useful, but if a category is needed its name may pose a problem (I personally support following the article name, but that's probably largely my Commonwealth English bias). Grutness...wha? 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- this suggests that there are plenty for a category. Grutness...wha? 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the CatScan link, support the template. Looks like there's enough for a cat so if >60 pgs, then support the cat, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks viable Himalayan 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. I've also created a further redirect from palaeo-geo-stub, which I suspect will be useful. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support the Canada one; support the US one iff we are splitting by faith, which IIRC we are. Grutness...wha? 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
Yes support both templates. Checking over at CatScan, the US one will be around 99, so support a cat if it does exceed 60. Not sure that the UK one will exceed 60 yet. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I'm confused... what articles would fall under {{US-RC-church-stub}}? vs. the newly created (see below) {{US-RC-parish-stub}} as its template states it is about "Roman Catholicism in the United States" so even cathedrals/chapels/monasteries, which aren't typically parish churches, fall within the latter's scope. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly silly question... isn't the Anglican faith called Episcopalian in the US? Or are they slightly different? Grutness...wha? 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not a silly question. The Episcopal Church (United States) is part of the Anglican Communion. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding {{US-anglican-church-stub}}, currently an upmerge, was there ever a consideration for naming it {{US-episcopal-church-stub}}? Seems to me that the stub template needs renaming before a stub cat is created so I've redacted the proposed United States Anglican church stubs cat... though a cat is viable, in my mind, this needs more discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
For general articles related to Ladakh. Might be viable for Cat:Ladakh stubs we'll see.. Himalayan 11:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would a {{Ladakh-geo-stub}} also be useful? Grutness...wha? 22:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there can be merged into the parent cat until viable. Himalayan 10:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started working on Template:Malla rulers and is needed for this and other Nepalese royalty stubs. Need a template like {{India-royal-stub}}.
- An upmerged template would certainly make some sense -we have about a dozen royals marked with {{Nepal-bio-stub}}, if CatScan is any judge. I doubt there'd be near enough for a separate category yet, though. Grutness...wha? 04:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support upmerged template, category only if 60 are stubs. Waacstats (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto. Support upmerge template; and cat when there are 60. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Same here. Eastmain, please be aware that stub categories are normally only split when they reach around 800 stubs - 210 is almost the perfect number of articles for a stub category, and categories shouldn't exist if there are fewer than 60 stubs except in rare circumstances. Grutness...wha? 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I proposed Africa school templates a while back. Support all school templates, split by region eventually when viable... Himalayan 11:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support upmerged template Waacstats (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto support. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto, template only. Grutness...wha? 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support upmerged template Waacstats (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto support. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- As above. Grutness...wha? 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I proposed Uganda-school-stub last month. Didn't anybody here remember? Himalayan 11:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nah - no-one listens to anything you say ;) Seriously, there are so many proposals here it's very difficult to keep track of them all, so the occasional double-proposal is inevitable. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Create provincial templates for Bulgaria
Cat:Bulgaria geography stubs 655 articles but many missing villages red linked ready for starting by province. I'd recommend creating templates by province and then upmerging into regional categories.
- Templates for:
Blagoevgrad · Burgas · Dobrich · Gabrovo · Haskovo · Kardzhali · Kyustendil · Lovech · Montana · Pazardzhik · Pernik · Pleven · Plovdiv · Razgrad · Rousse · Shumen · Silistra · Sliven · Smolyan · Sofia City · Sofia Province · Stara Zagora · Targovishte · Varna · Veliko Tarnovo · Vidin · Vratsa · Yambol
Regional categories based on ordering on the guide bulgaria site:
Himalayan 21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a good idea, do any of the provinces need disambiguating and which ones go where. Waacstats (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- ISTR there's somewhere else called Montana somewhere :) Of the others, I think Varna may need dabbing... not sure about the others, but a search using Special:PrefixIndex should find any. BG is the dabbing code, BTW, so we'd be looking at {{MontanaBG-geo-stub}} and similar. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is my proposal for Roman Catholic parish stub.
{{asbox |image = BasilicaExterior.jpg |pix = 40x25 |subject = |qualifier = on a [[:Category:Roman Catholic parishes in the United States]] |category = Roman Catholic Church stubs |tempsort = |name = Template:RC-US-parish-stub }} --WlaKom (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Swap to {{US-RC-parish-stub}} and change the qualifier to something like Roman Catholic parish in the United States and i think we are there. Waacstats (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
{{asbox |image = BasilicaExterior.jpg |pix = 40x25 |subject = |qualifier = on a [[Roman Catholicism in the United States|Roman Catholic parish in the United States]] |category = Roman Catholic parishes in the United States |tempsort = |name = Template:US-RC-parish-stub }} But I don't know how to do it. Every time I try, I make article:-((
- On the other hand, all parishes will be in one category, and I would like to be separated by state. --WlaKom (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Normally we wait 5 days before creating, if you need halp creating after that then let me know on my talk page and I'll see what I can do (I am on holiday so may not have connection but will get round to it sometime soon. Waacstats (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the qualifier above. I support this basic template, but NOT a by-state split. At the moment there are fewer than 200 articles in total in Cat:Roman Catholic parishes in the United States and its subcats - a separate cstub ategory for US RC parishes is probably viable, but we're nowhere near close to a by-state split. Grutness...wha? 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Grutness to make stub with suggested changes only.--WlaKom (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Create Bolivian department templates and possible split
Judging by how many articles we have currently and those articles being created this is best done now.. We have 500 and something Bolivian geogrpahy stubs at present so category split is not desperate yet, but pre ordering by department and region maybe would seem sensible. Himalayan 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support templates, assuming no mistakes besides the two spaces I deleted before -geo-stub, categories if they go over 60 and given there are only 9 so some of these will, categories of the form Cat:Beni Department geography stubs to follow article and category. Waacstats (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking... Himalayan 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks forcorrecting my mistake Waacstats (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest a few more (Beni, Potosi, etc.), perhaps all of them, should also include the country (BL) identifier such as SantaCruzBL-geo-stub does. Doublechecking for "Beni", "Potosi", etc. I find that multiple other countries have localities with the same name. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unless these are all in Saint-Barthélemy, I'd suggest changing those codings from BL to BO, which is the ISO code for Bolivia! We've already got a load of Virginia stubs listed as being in the Virgin islands, let's not confuse things further with these :) Grutness...wha? 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to create a new "stub" for the Roman Catholic parishes founded by Polish immigrants in the U.S. since 1880. Something like this:
{{asbox |image = Moczygemba.jpg |pix = 40x25 |subject = |qualifier = on a [[:Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in the United States|Roman Catholic parishes]] founded by Polish immigrants |category = Roman Catholic Church stubs |tempsort = |name = Template:RC-Pol-parish-stub }} I started from the parishes included in the table Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England Could you help me?--WlaKom (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a very odd way to split stubs, to be honest (and certainly the proposed name looks very non-standard). Not quite sure how we'd proceed with this one, since parishes are split primarily by country. Considering the number of stubs there are for US RC parishes in general, perhaps a US-RC-parish-stub would suffice? Grutness...wha? 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, the "US RC parishes" stub is also needed, but I am thinking about, very specific, base on ethnicity stub. There are about 500 parishes in US founded by Polish immigrants and I would like to invite people who have knowledge about Polish immigrants to help expend articles. The name could be change, it is just proposal. I don't have any experience to create stub.--WlaKom (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Not sure this is the right way to go, I agree with grutness that the normal split would be by country and then in terms of the US by state, we don't even have a {{RC-parish-stub}}. Also a question is someone with an interest in a polish immigrant church in NY more likely to know about other polish immigrant churches across the US or other RC churches in NY? Waacstats (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree to make also {{RC-parish-stub}} for all parishes in US.--WlaKom (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree a {{RC-parish-stub}} would be a good idea for all RC parishes and probably a {{US-RC-parish-stub}} for all parishes in the US. Waacstats (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Close I would like to close this project about separate stub for Polish parishes is USA, because it doesn't make sense to create extra stub. It is much easier to categorize manually.--WlaKom (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Parent category would be Category:Palestinian organizations. See Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, Palestinian Hydrology Group as typical stubs that would fit. Many other countries have -org-stub categories. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support template {{Palestine-org-stub}}, category if we have 60 articles relating to organizations in Palestine as opposed to orgs in foreign countries supporting Palestine and some how make clear in the template that this is the case. Waacstats (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Becoming oversized nearing 800. Split by department? Himalayan 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- A start seems to have already been made on this one with templates by department and categories by region - there are six regions). I'd support continuing with that scheme (assuming the regions are official, which they seem to be), with subcats for any department with over 60 stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this was already in the pipeline so speedy support. Waacstats (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This new category is currently at 858 articles and growing as I'm only midway through stub tagging US garden articles.
Support. Anything we missed Grutness? Himalayan 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Support converting (moving?) Australia-botanical-garden-stub to Australia-garden-stub, and the creation of UK-garden-stub. Both upmerges 'til they're >60. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Support all above proposals. Waacstats (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Note change in category name from Japanese-garden-stub to Japan-garden-stub to clarify the country and avoid ambiguity with the garden style known as the Japanese garden which has category Cat:Japanese gardens. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
-
63 stubs. Batna geography stubs or Batna Province geography stubs? Himalayan 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Article and Category are at Batna Province and Cat:Batna Province so go with Cat:Batna Province geography stubs. Waacstats (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hamburg stub sorting
Sorting Germany by state, here especially Hamburg and trying to improve the coverage of Hamburg (although I'm trying to bring articles at least to start class—maybe later introducing a Hamburg task force), I propose the creation of a parent stub : {{Hamburg-stub}} (This Hamburg-related article is a stub.) as a parent to {{Hamburg-geo-stub}} {{Hamburg-U-Bahn-stub}}, child to {{Germany-stub}}, sorting into the Category:Hamburg stubs (parent: Category:Germany stubs, Category:Hamburg)
And the creation of
- {tl|Hamburg-bio-stub} (This Hamburg biographical article is a stub.) (Parents: then created Hamburg-stub, existing {{Germany-bio-stub}}; child: then created Hamburg-politician-stub.)
- {tl|Hamburg-politician-stub} (This article about a Hamburg politician is a stub.) parents: then created Hamburg-bio-stub, existing {{Germany-politician-stub}}. As Hamburg is a German state comparable to US states (and former independent and sovereign), I propose this subnational stub, especially for all historic politicians (and other) not covered by the current German party stubs.
- {{Hamburg-struct-stub}} (This article about a building or structure in Hamburg is a stub.) to sort building and structure articles out of the {{Hamburg-geo-stub}} (parents: then created Hamburg-stub, existing {{Germany-struct-stub}}).
Thanks. Sebastian scha. (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I support {{Hamburg-stub}} and {{Hamburg-struct-stub}} (and the same should probably exist for all German states) - but I'm less certain of the politician-stub, and would oppose a bio-stub. Bio-stubs are not that often used for sub-national regions - it makes more sense much of the time to divide by nationality then occupation. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support {{Hamburg-stub}} and {{Hamburg-struct-stub}}. Oppose politician and bio though. We go by party and nationally. Himalayan 11:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support. I've created a good number myself.--TM 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Changing from Support to Comment/Question at the moment as was wondering if there were enough African geo stub articles to create stub templates by some of the African countries? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly. Dams arre a bit confusing because they can be marked as either struct-stubs or geo-stubs, depending on whether the articles are primarily about the dams or the lakes that are formed by them. It's quite likely there'd be enough for country templates, though I doubt any would have enough for a separate category. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals, September 2009
Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.
If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.
[edit] Create new stub templates for Greek prefectures
Massive amount of stubs for Greece means that it would be wise to create new templates by Prefectures of Greece. Many are currently viable (not 100% certain) like Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Arcadia Prefecture for {{Arcadia-geo-stub}} and Cat:Arcadia geography stubs. I would strongly recommend creating these templates and resorting them from regional where viable, Greece gets pretty much a headache organizationally. The thing is a lot of them a borderline start class articles so I'm uncertain as to whether or not they should be stub tagged. Either way I still think we should create prefecture templates. Himalayan 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Viable per Catscan. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I misread the proposal. I support the templates although garden-stub would be simpler but I don't think there is a need to split a stub category which only as 275 stubs. We normally consider around 800-850 + to be oversized. 275 stubs in one category is perfectly manageable... Himalayan 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are better ways these could be split, and in any case, with only 200 stubs Cat:Horticulture stubs is probably better not split. If it was to be split, a plain {{garden-stub}} covering both would make more sense. Rosiestep, these weren't speediable and there's a delay period before creating these things for a reason. Please don't make more work for everyone by ignoring it! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- By explanation, very few stub class botanical gardens and arboretum articles are tagged with a stub template of any sort. A few had the horticulture-stub template on them which is why I proposed Split of Cat:Horticulture stubs, though I could just as well have proposed Split of Cat:Botany stubs as a few (much fewer, actually) of these articles had the Botany-stub template. A few only had a geo-stub template. However, most of the stubs didn't have any stub template at all. I did viability research by running Catscan on Cat:Botanical gardens and Cat:Arboreta. The reasons I created the Australia-botanical-garden-stub template is that there are were several stub articles already created, and about 60 redlinks for additional articles; it had been my intention to create those redlinked articles this week. I thought that US-botanical-garden-stub would be appropriate, too So having explained the reasons for my actions, let's move on to your suggestion: {{garden-stub}}; I'm fine with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. Sorry to have seemed hasty with this and the SFD for the Aussie one - but it did seem pretty premature based on current numbrs (which is what we always go by here - not future numbers), especially since the Aussie one hadn't been proposed. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seemed like double-work to go through all the Cat:Botanical gardens and Cat:Arboreta articles, tag the stub-class ones with {{horticulture-stub}} and then propose the split. But if I had done this to begin with, I could have given an accurate count, so maybe the double-work would have been worth it. I just went through Cat:Arboreta and added {{horticulture-stub}} to the stub class ones. I did not count how many already had {{horticulture-stub}} but it was easy to account for the ones that I added the template to: 247. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- You wouldn't have needed to do that - all you needed to do to get a rough idea of numbers was run one of the tools that shows you how many articles in Cat:Arboreta were short. It wouldn't have given you an exact number of stubs, but it would have given a very clear indication of approximate numbers. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A recent list List of schools in Uganda has brought to my attention a good number of articles not tagged as Uganda-school-stub and the high likelihood these articles will be created shortly in the future. I'd say this template would be appropriate... Himalayan 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support; it's appropriate. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Oversized, we can either split by decade of birth or by party. If we split by party the following are all vaible (happy to change names if anyone can think of something better)
If done by decade of birth I propose templates for each decade needed and the following categories would be viable
Anyone any prefernces? Waacstats (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC) That many Ontarian politicians? Support by party, looks fine. Himalayan 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Himalayan which split do you support? Waacstats (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Support by party'. Himalayan 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
slightly oversized (1029) currently have by prefecture split and upmerged templates, the following are now viable from these upmerged templates
Waacstats (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Support, these have been steadily creeping up.. Himalayan 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
propose splitting ths by dob with templates at {{Germany-CDU-politician-1960s-stub}} and categories for those that reach 60 at Cat:German Christian Democratic Union politician, 1960s birth stubs should cut down this 2000+ behemoth. Waacstats (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Mmm, cat is definately oversized. I'm not sure though that will prompt more editors to fill them out. Note also a lot of them as yet don't have birthdates inserted in the articles so stub sorting will be difficult in this way. I may actually request that we delete some of them because it is too much work to fill them all out. I've actually requested to delete the "sub stubs" see User talk:Xeno. The task needed to fill them all with birth dates and some basic info out is too huge. When they have been deleted the cat will be manageable. . Himalayan 10:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good point about the DoB, I checkef the first 15 articles and only 1 didn't have the DoB in the article but catscan shows less than 400 have a dob category so maybe we need to look at something else if this category remains at this size and I would expect politicians to be notable so they may not be deleted. Waacstats (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh they are all notable, undoubtedly, just lack even the basics that would make them valid. I think the best thing would be to delete them and start them a bit more adequately at a later date. I ca't see too many people willing to go through 2100 articles adding birth dates and some eferenced info. Actually I got as far as B adding birth dates. If you actually check any from C -Z at random you'll see what I mean. Try selecting 15 articles at ramdon from C-Z. It is likely to be only 1 in 10 actually has birth dates, not vice versa....Random article Wolfgang Dehnel. Himalayan 14:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- As this is down to 33 articles (I assume through deletions) we can scrap this suggestion. Waacstats (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Quite a drastic reduction eh? Himalayan 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As with the German CDU so with the UK Conservatives propose splitting ths by dob with templates at {{Conservative-UK-MP-1960s-stub}} and categories for those that reach 60 at Cat:Conservative MP (UK), 1960s birth stubs should cut down this 1000+ behemoth. Waacstats (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Support here, as we actually have the birth dates! Himalayan 10:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose creating {{psych-test-stub}}, categorised under Cat:Psychological testing stubs or something similar. According to CatScan, there are 55 articles tagged as psych stubs and under Cat:Psychological testing. However, there's a LOT that are improperly categorised, like Abbreviated mental test score, Chitling Intelligence Test, Addiction Research Center Inventory, Eating Attitudes Test, Multnomah Community Ability Scale, reading span task and Rosenberg self esteem scale. That gets us up to over 60. — Skittleys (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looks sensible - though someone else can sort it (I've conducted a few too many mental rotation and stroop tests in my time - aversion to the subject has set in :) Grutness...wha? 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose {{antineoplastic-stub}} and Cat:Antineoplastic drugs. According to CatScan, of the articles tagged with (the overpopulated) {{pharm-stub}}, 61 are in Cat:Antineoplastic drugs, and 70 are in Cat:Chemotherapeutic agents (which is SUPPOSED to be obsolete and replaced with the former category...). — Skittleys (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have nothing against this but I only count 52 articles. Waacstats (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; plus these: {{CEF-stub}} (>40 entries; none doublestubbed with {{Canada-mil-hist-stub}}). --Rosiestep (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC) - CEF-stub needs to be either deleted (and combined with the Canada-mil-hist-stub) or renamed. CEF is, among other things, a major Brazilian bank, an Indian military unit from the 19th century, and the air force of the Czech Republic (see CEF). I don't recall it ever having been proposed - if it had been it would surely have been pointed out at the time that its name went against stub naming conventions due to its ambiguity. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I combined the CEF-stub articles into Canada-mil-hist-stub and then deleted CEF-stub. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good support category. Waacstats (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
750 stubs, if you take into account the remaining communes should be well over 1500 soon enough. Propose to create templates by province and upmerge those which ar enot viable yet and split the others Himalayan 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support in principle with names of templates as above but with spaces removed, just a question do any of these need Province in the title or need disambiguating from regions of other countries. Waacstats (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Spaces and hyphens removed (e.g., OumelBouaghi-geo-stub). Redirects from the same without diacriticals would also be useful (e.g., AinTemouchent-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Mmm I'd keep it e.g {{Ghardaïa-geo-stub}} and if that became viable make it Cat:Ghardaïa Province geography stubs. I'd say looking at the names we could probably get away with leaving province out of the naming here...Cat:Ghardaïa geography stubs would be OK too. Himalayan 21:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree as far as the categories are concerned. Also, all the equivalent permcats use "Province" (see Cat:Category:Provinces of Algeria). As to whether the templates need disambiguating, if they do we'd normally use the ISO two-character code as a dab (unless there's problems with both a province and city in the same country, say). The following might cause problems and may need dabbing:
- It might be better to spell them out with "Province" though, given that almost all have capitals with the same name and some also have districts with the same name. Some of the listed names seem not quite right, though (Oum El Bouaghi and Tipaza for instance). Checking Cat:Provinces of Algeria will be useful to get the exact names. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes that would be fine. The DZ though is not instantly recognisable though! Himalayan 10:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - unfortunately that's the code, though. I suppose it comes from the local version of the country's name. Grutness...wha? 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently 435 573 pages. Upmerges ready to split out.
- Support, I wonder if Brazil is viable for its own... Himalayan 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- If not, it's really close... I'll get it sorted out today. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Support all categories, with the usual caveats that stubs should be double-stubbed with appropriate geo-stubs. Not so sure on the templates, tyhough. Firstly,, we\'ve been suing "Europe-", not "Euro-" in recent times, and secondly we tend to prefer by-county upmerged templates rather than continent-wide ones where possible. BTW, the europe category would also have Cat:United Kingdom Site of Special Scientific Interest stubs as a subtype. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Support all, the Bald One is guilty for a lot of these... Himalayan 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Split out Cat:United Kingdom theologian stubs. Cat:United Kingdom academic biography stubs is oversized, this is the closest I can get to 60 using catscan (57 double stubbed), sure there must be 1 or 2 hiding in just one. Waacstats (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree it makes sense to create {{UK-theologian-stub}} if you think there's ~60. Also, I'm going to be bold and change the header from "Split out Cat:United Kingdom theologian stubs" to "Split of Cat:United Kingdom academic biography stubs" as there are now 3 split suggestions from the main cat. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- nb I have just found out that the newly created (off the to do list) {{UK-economist-stub}} has gone over 60 so porpose Cat:United Kingdom economist stubs while I am at it. No rush for the UK theologian cat but might as well create the template and if it goes pass 60 may as well have the category, should keep the UK academics off the oversized list for a bit longer. Waacstats (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support the UK economist stubs cat. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently at 424 entries being fed by 11 province and territory upmerges. These 4 are ready to split off.
Note, that these 2 split off previously: Cat:British Columbia school stubs and Cat:Ontario school stubs. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would support in light of the fact that education falls under provincial jurisdiction.
However, why is "British Columbia" correctly spaced in its stub while the space is missing in "NovaScotia"? Also, the two existing provincial stubs are not hyphenated while your four are. These things all need to be standardized, I should think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC) - Oh wait, I see. The category names don't match the appearance in the bracketed stubs, which use a different spacing. Anyway, support. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, the difference is in stub category naming convention vs. stub template naming convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support, speedily. Waacstats (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not correctly measured how many stub articles are on Wiki, but when I created Seongdong Market, it was a bit surprising to know that there has no such stub, so I inserted {{trade-stub}} instead. Here are rough research.
--Caspian blue 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is a {{Retail-stub}} which vcovers this at the moment. I'd support the templates util it is clear there become viable, dunno about the categories yet... Himalayan 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. However, the stubs are under Cat:Retail company stubs which does not look consistent with the template name...--Caspian blue 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
So it is. Support seperate cats too then if viable. Himalayan 17:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We have some confusion here, since market-stub is currently used with Cat:Commerce stubs. I can see problems with Cat:Market stubs - in fact, I'm amazed that Cat:Markets exists because of it - it's a very ambiguous term. Does it refer to bazaars and street markets, stock markets, or international trade markets? Whichever it - and the permcat - should probably say. The permcat actually seems to be a mix-up of all three... But if this can be resolved, then certainly splitting things the way you suggest makes sense. As to retail-stub, I'd suggest renaming the stub type for retail companies to retail-company-stub (via SFD) and using the current name (and Cat:Retailing stubs) as a parent type for retailing in general. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well the article we have on market is about retail markets. The template says about a market or bazaar to avoid that confusion. Besides which stubs about stock markets would be best marked as stockmarket-stub. Himalayan 13:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Damn biology stubs distracting me, 2 upmerged templates have passed 60 so propose
Waacstats (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unusual, these countries are usually neglected on here.... Support.. Himalayan 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any article in the stub category of African football biography stubs. Isn't {{Togo-footy-bio-stub}} pertinent to the first one? --Caspian blue 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies they are both in subcats of African football bios and we already have the templates. Waacstats (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Even worse than not noticing upmerged template passing 60, 2 of the subcats (Defender and Midfielder) have passed 800 and 1000 articles respectivley, I propose splitting these two and the striker category by date of birth with upmerged by decade templates as has been done in England and Brazil. (I really thought Germany or Spain would have beaten Russia to being the third country to do this). Waacstats (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope I have noticed stubs on young Russian footballers slowly clogging up.... Support. Himalayan 20:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I meant me missing them as I usually spend most of my time in the sports stubs. Waacstats (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
All viable. Note that it seems a high number of Quebec films are not stub categorised at all. The Quebecois film industry is notable in its own right so stub template and category is necessary. Himalayan 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've got to say I'm not 100% happy about this one could set a nasty precedant, If nation film stubs gets large we should look at splitting by genre or date. Also how easy is it to tell a french language film made in say Nova Scotia from a film made in Quebec. (nb I'm not against this just not happy with it at the moment) Waacstats (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, see Cinema of Quebec. It is very much one of the main Canadian film industries, as far as I'm aware the other regions don't have them, unless by location. Quebecois cinema is an industry in its own right in the French language and easily identifiable kind of in the way the Bollywood Hindi industry is in India based in Mumbai etc. Quebecois is normally produced in Montreal I think... I'll ask User:Bearcat. Himalayan 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Himalayan is correct about this. Canada essentially has two parallel film industries — Quebec film is a distinct film industry operating separately from the "main" film industry of The Rest of Canada. I don't think there's a single other province or state in all of North America that can genuinely claim to have such a thing — the only parallel situation I can think of is the distinct regional film industries of India.
- This doesn't correspond strictly to shooting location; it's possible for an ROC film to be made in Quebec, and it's possible for a Quebec film to be made in Nova Scotia. What it does correspond to, by and large, is language: the Quebec industry is primarily French (although there have been a few English films as well), while as far as I know the ROC's film industry has never made a single French language film — unless you count Bon Cop, Bad Cop, and even that was a Quebec-ROC collab.
- If a film production company from Quebec is making the film, it's a Quebec film even if it's shot in Mongolia, and if a production company from Toronto is making the film, it's a Rest of Canada film even if it's shot in the Citadelle of Quebec City — because it's not a question of shooting location, it's a question of which one of two parallel industries the film is being made by. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still not 100% happy but I will not oppose it. Waacstats (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see why Waacs, but really the Quebec film industry is quite distinct, it would seem more feasible to link the Montreal based French language films into a stub category than mixing Quebecois French films in with general Canadian films in say a 1970s-Canada film stub for instance. If you really feel that strongly against it I have no qualms, just a suggestion given that Quebec films seems to be clearly distinct from general english Canadian films. After all, we have Hindi-film-stub, Malayalam-film stub etc rather than 1970s-India-film-stub etc.. Himalayan 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I work in the English-Quebec (aka English Montreal) film industry and while I think Bearcat is understating the number of English Quebec films when he terms them a "few," I support the creation of these stubs in principle. But I do wonder -- and have for some time -- where the Montreal-produced English-language films of the NFB would fit in all this. The NFB is an agency of the Canadian government -- but until its development of regional production centres in the late 70s, scores of English NFB films were produced out of Quebec. Not because they were in any way intrinsically Quebecois, but because this was where the NFB was based. The NFB retains two English studios in Quebec: Quebec Centre (for docs) and the Oscar-winning Animation Studio (which is unarguably the best known of all NFB studios in Canada). Are these Quebec films? They're made in Quebec, in many but not all cases by Quebec directors, and always by Quebec-based producers. NFB aside, Montreal boasts such indie doc production houses as Eyesteel film, Rezolution, Cineflix, that do work almost exclusively in English; not to mention mini-majors like Astral that remain based in Montreal, thanks to Harold Greenberg. Porky's was made thanks to Greenberg: would we be stubbing Porky's as a Quebec film, if it was a stub class article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it matters if there are many english films as well, as long as they ar eproduced by the Quebec film industry. If is was say FrenchCanaddian-film-stub then it might be an issue but as it is I think its OK... Himalayan 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oversized, the following are viable
Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Oversized, the following are viable
Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Oversized, the following are viable
Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Oversized, the following are viable
Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Another moth family has mor e than 60 articles, will bring the category down closer to 800. I propose
Waacstats (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Why or why o WHYYYYY didn't the creator think about this first.... The worrying thing is that some of the stubs like Gazoryctra have not been touched in 4 years.. Himalayan 18:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support But could you more specifically present {{what-stub}} are needed for the splitting? --Caspian blue 16:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean the category that the articles are currently in is in the title Cat:Moth stubs and the category and template I propose to create are listed above as {{Drepanidae-stub}} / Cat:Drepanidae stubs. Waacstats (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, the comment is related to your other nominations below.--Caspian blue
- Now I understand, my mistake I usually include them, as I have now created them I won't bother but in each case the template is foo-stub for category foo stubs.
Upmerge of approximately 10 templates, which is probably overkill. However, total of stubs adds up to over 60. As for the name, Kosovan seems to be commonly used on Wikipedia in some cases, while Kosovar in others. I much prefer Kosovar and believe it is the correct version. Thoughts?--TM 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- If there's 60 stubs in all, then support as Kosovan. "Kosovan" is used on Wikipedia since "Kosovar" is a politically loaded term and is likely to lead to edit-warring problems. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Support Cat:Kosovan people stubs per Grutness Himalayan 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Another oversized insect category, propose the following
Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Surprise surprise. Support.. Himalayan 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The articles in the category are sorted by "order of Mantodea", so they should be divided by subcategories like "family" or "genius".--Caspian blue 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Another oversized gastropod category, the only large enough stub cat that I can find is
Waacstats (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Too big category. --Caspian blue 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals, August 2009
Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.
If (after approval) you create a stub type, please be sure to add it to the list of stub types. This page will be archived in its entirety once all discussions have been closed; there is no need to move them to another page.
[edit] NEW PROPOSALS
Odd that there isn't one of these for preparation methods when we've got a {{cooking-tool-stub}}. I've tagged a few articles with {{food-stub}} instead but that's obviously not optimal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Support -Seems reasonable. Himalayan 11:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Support per nom and above. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and created this stub, shall I create the category Cat:cooking stubs?
- Yes, please. It should be a subcategory of Cat:food and drink stubs rather than Cat:food stubs, since the latter has been repurposed to be about specific foodstuffs (corresponding to Category:Foods) instead of general food-and-drink topics. Dr.frog (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only if there are 60 existing stubs that can use it. Best thing to do is to start with it upmerged (in Cat:Food stubs), and change the category to a dedicated category once it's clear there are 60. After all, the proposal was for the template alone, not for the template/category pair. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe this now meets the 60 pages requirement. Dr.frog (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- 71 stubs, if whatlinkshere is anything to go by. Assuming they are all stubs (which I didn't check). In which case it's speediable as a separate category. Theoretically it should be proposed (on the current month's page), but I doubt there'd be any objections if you just went ahead and made it, given that there were no objections to the template. Grutness...wha? 10:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Specialty templates for Cat:Tool stubs
To9ol stubs has long been a mix'n'match of articles ranging from dustpan to defibrillator, and it's not an easy one to sort through. It might well be worth adding a few more specialist templates to enable it to be split at a future point when it gets too big and amorphous. I'd like to suggest the following:
These three should between them cover about half of the articles, at a rough guesstimate, and the second and third of them would be in line with the one current subcategory (Cat:Cooking tool stubs). Grutness...wha? 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support, I think the Adhesive is speediable as i think it os on the To Do list. Waacstats (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Support - main cat too generic anyway.. Himalayan 11:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - current ones are far to general.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs)
Deserves its own category becaus it is the second largest moth family [2]. About 160 pages would be moved from {{Moth stubs}} Tim1357 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delayed support, had I spotted it I would have added it to the list below. Waacstats (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
That's OK. If you do generate anymore stubs, perhaps you could make a note here that you are creating over 60 new stubs, I'm sure we can work out any new templates/categories in advance as a special case.. Anyway if you could generate like Laysan Hedyleptan Moth using a reliable source not self referencing to a family wiki article I don't have many complaints as, although it will involve a great deal of work to expand the articles, they are definately needed ones. Himalayan 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- i will be adding a lot of pages to this category. I have found a list of Genus' that i will create articles for. see that list here User:Tim1357/sandbox67.142.130.34 (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Recent flooding of Cat:Moth stubs means this and probably a few others are viable... As it stands we now have 5000 stubs in the main category.... Himalayan 16:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it seems the creator is taking the iniative to stub sort without proposing here see this. Perhaps somebody could notify him and direct him here.... Himalayan 21:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, im sorry to have filled the stub category. I am more then happy to help sort them, I did not see the box on moth stubs about proposing new ones here. Tim1357 (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that this stub would be over 60 based on the article but are we missing a permanent category for this family. Waacstats (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I had to go back and fix quite a bit of the refrences so I was bold and just changed the stubs when i was there, instead of having to go back and change them later. Ill undo it if asked. Tim1357 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Oversized cat propose a Cat:New York City Registered Historic Place stubs fed by upmerged by borough templates. Waacstats (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Slovenia geography stubs
My proposal would be to replace the current municipality geography stubs for Slovenia (only a few have been created, they're of limited use and they mostly don't have a lot of members) with the stubs for traditional regions of Slovenia. Currently, I think this would suffice and would simplify things by bringing templates in the line with categories.
- {{Borovnica-geo-stub}}, {{Ljubljana-geo-stub}} ----> {{InnerCarniola-geo-stub}} (list)
- {{NovoMesto-geo-stub}} ----> {{LowerCarniola-geo-stub}} (list)
- {{Celje-geo-stub}}, {{Maribor-geo-stub}}, {{Ptuj-geo-stub}}, {{SlovenjGradec-geo-stub}}, {{Velenje-geo-stub}} ----> {{LowerStyria-geo-stub}} (list)
- {{MurskaSobota-geo-stub}} ----> {{Prekmurje-geo-stub}} (list)
- {{Ajdovščina-geo-stub}}, {{Bovec-geo-stub}}, {{BrdaSI-geo-stub}}, {{Koper-geo-stub}}, {{NovaGorica-geo-stub}} ----> {{SlovenianLittoral-geo-stub}} (list)
- {{Bohinj-geo-stub}}, {{Kranj-geo-stub}} ----> {{UpperCarniola-geo-stub}} (list)
Support Actually a while back we discussed creating a full set of municipal templates and upmerging by region. Might I suggest we also split Category:Cities, towns and villages in Slovenia by subdivision too? Himalayan 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose replacement, though suggest adding region-specific templates. While it looks like the current templates aren't much use, given the upmerging, there are still close to 1700 unsorted Slovenian geography stubs. Which means that there's a very good chance we'll be splitting the regions up into subregions sooner rather than later. If that's the case, then we'd need to start splitting out the larger municipalities (since that's the second tier of Slovenian region split). Having the urban ones at least with templates ready for that eventuality makes sense. As for "bringing templates in line with categories", upmerging is fairly standard practice at WP:WSS, so there's no real necessity for that. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh sorry I didn't read the proposal properly. Oppose replacement. We should create templates for each Slovenian municipality and upmerge into the regional cats definately NOT replace existing municipal stub templates. That would be best. As far as I am aware those are only loose historical names for the regions anyway and officially the government goes by munipalities. Duh Himalayan. Must be altitude sickness... Himalayan 16:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't aware I was supposed to go through here for new stub-types, and I boldly created this one as well as the accompanying category. It is consistent with the related stubs based on video game companies by region. I've already filled the category up and have 124 articles that fit under this stub-type. This is the stub-types that are out there, so far (the one I just created in bold):
I don't know what else needs to be done, here, but I apologize for not coming here first as I didn't know I had to do that. Regards, MuZemikeUse my VG templates! 16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it'll lead to a fair bit of work. Renaming it needs to be done, to start with - if the decision is to keep it. It should be at {{Europe-videogame-company-stub}} - the same as all other Europe-specific stub types, and also in line with the Japan- type (not, note, Japanese- ), and the current name need to be deleted. However, in recent years we've gone away from having continent-wide stub types and now usually only make country-specific ones, upmerged into continent-wide categories (it makes for easier later splitting and also allows stubsd to be upmerged to two separate useful categories) -so this particular stub template may not be appropriate anyway. Either way there'll be a fair bit of restubbing work to do. Perhaps you should have read the part of WP:BOLD which says that it applies to articles, but not to templates... Grutness...wha? 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- My bot can update the usages for the proper naming, it won't be painful at all (I see borgarde already moved it in line with proper naming, so I updated the heading). As for the individual countries... some countries have only a single VG company - at all - let alone multiple stubs (eg. Bulgarian video game companies, Norwegian video game companies, or Danish video game companies). Just to use in your thinking on this. –xenotalk 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This is currently large with 371 articles and with only Australian prison stubs as an empty subcat. This is mainly a list of present, historical or fictional prisons, jails and detention facilities with far too few entries on prison or jail legality, practices, conditions and history. To encourage development of entries on prison and jail topics and to distinguish between the fundamentally different categories of individual facilities and topics about corrections facilities, I propose two subcats:
Other names welcome. Jessamyncp (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Moved from bottom of page)Waacstats (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- firstly there are 106 articles in the Australian subcat, you had me worried saying it was empty, secondly 371 really isn't all that large (check out Cat:Asteroid stubs or Cat:American people stubs and some of there subcats) I'm sure with a bit of work the US and UK templates could reach 60. I don't think we need to split this at the moment other than if the US/UK get up to size unless someone is planning to create a mass of articles and then I would suggest templates till there are 60 articles. Waacstats (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Waacstats. My mistake, there are indeed 106 articles in the Australian subcat. Second, you're right that there aren't enough Prison Topic stubs to justify a subcat yet. It's too bad that there are so many stubs with names of individual prisons obscuring the Prison topic stubs. (I only disagree in that I think this category is very different from the lists of asteroids or American people since those homogeneous categories might not meet other stub sorting guidelines such as "will the new sub-type be well-defined".) Prison name is quite different from Prison topics of current stubs (prison transport, work release, youth detention center). Many more people are likely to be able to contribute information on youth detention centers (juvenile hall!) than on, say, Bracebridge jail. Due to their nature, it is very difficult to find the topical prison stubs without a subcategory. Hopefully users will soon be adding more prison topics stubs and editing the ones that are there and it will be appropriate to create a subcategory.Jessamyncp (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- A better name might be Cat:Prison structure stubs.--TM 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly the proposed names are pretty odd, as neither suggests that it is a stub category. However, since we've started to split out stubs by location, surely that's the way to continue. Stubs in the category are really only supposed to be on individual prisons, though, so perhaps some larger parent stub category is needed for the other related topics. Then we'd have
We could that way later extend it, if necessary, to have penal system stubs for individual countries. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a very good comprimise. Waacstats (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds great. -Jessamyncp (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Korea-bio templates
I think these templates should be split into NorthKorea-bio and SouthKorea-bio where necessary. I also think we need to keep Korea-bio for articles before the countries divided.
The following will be affected:
Category structure proposed is:
Borgarde (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I would see what User:Caspian blue has to say... Himalayan 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is becoming more viable - the main problem is that so many of the articles (especially for things like writer, painter, etc) are people who lived predominantly pre 1950. So even with the two subtypes, there will be a large number of articles in the parent cats. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
currently oversized (1200+) articles with no subcats. The only subcats I can find that have 60+ articles is Cat:Cutaneous conditions at over 1000 articles from here we have 5 categories that have 60 + articles so I suggest
God alone knows what to call the templates though, any ideas. Waacstats (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I think user:Kilbad and WP:DERM are going through a major online text adding stubs for all sking conditions without articles. Maybe worth dropping a line over at that project's talk page there about this one. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you for notifying us at WP:DERM about this discussion. I think having the dermatology stub categories mirror the formal derm categories is a good idea. The current categorization scheme for dermatology-related content is available at WP:DERM:CAT. With that being said, I therefore would like to see, as you have done above, stub categories that are named the same as the formal category, but with the word "stub" appended. Does that make sense? ---kilbad (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- So it sounds like a major editor of dermatolgy articles is supportive of this, given the above are the only categories that have over 60 stubs, any idea on template names? Waacstats (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- From a WSS point of view, one or two of them are fairly straightforward - {[tl|Cutaneous-stub}} for the parent and {{genodermatoses-stub}} - for the others, perhaps {{Skin-appendage-stub}}, {{Dermal-growth-stub}}, {{Epidermal-growth-stub}}, and {{Cutaneous-infection-stub}} respectively? Grutness...wha? 22:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Waacstats (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I seem to be taking on the life stubs so here goes, according to catscan the follwoing are viable
Geometridae would be immediatly oversized at 2889 but better having that than one cat at over 5000. Waacstats (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Support, Waacs you do realise I am baldy don't you? Himalayan 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed, I tend to avoid fuss on here where possible, sorry to hear about all the trouble but glad to see you've stayed. Hope we will still have your input here even if we won't be seeing so many of your articles. Waacstats (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Aah. That explains why we haven't seen the evil doctor around here lately... Grutness...wha? 23:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming and reorganization of Gene stubs
Nothing about the "gene-stub" category or its 23 subcategories suggests that it's for human genes only. Right now, there are 15 articles using the gene-stub tag, several of which are non-human genes. That seems right to me...in fact, I don't know where the non-human gene stubs are ending up, because there MUST be more! BUT, the subcategories are all called "Chromosome a gene stubs", where a = 1-22 or X. This is clearly referring to HUMAN genes!! But this should be much more explicit. So, I propose the following:
- 1. The category Gene stubs under Genetics stubs be either
- (a) renamed to "Human gene stubs"; or
- (b) kept titled as is, with 1 subcategory entitled "Human gene stubs"
- Which option to choose depends mostly on where the non-human gene stubs are going. If they're just going under "Genetics stubs" (which they don't seem to be), option (b) seems the better choice. If they're elsewhere (the various fungus/plant/animal/microbio categories?), option (a) may be better...
- 2. All the "Chromosome __ gene stubs" be retitled "Human chromosome __ gene stubs".
I think the most logical idea would be to have the "gene stubs" category, with "human gene stubs" underneath, AND also have the other organismal genes placed in there too...but that would require a LOT of collaboration. I'm posting a link to this on the WikiProjects Genetics page immediately. I'm also going to look into the non-human genes thing a bit more, and then possible post a link on some of the following WikiProjects: Biology, Evolutionary biology, Microbiology, Molecular + cell bio, Viruses, and more...wow, there's more than I thought....
— Skittleys (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: Erm, I hope it was implied, but I'm also proposing the templates be renamed, not just the categories! — Skittleys (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- This may be more something for WP:SFD than here, since it requires a mass renaming of templates and categories. The gene stub types were proposed in the middle of last year, but somehow it must've slipped through that they were for human genetics. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
current upmerged template with over 60 articles. speedy? Waacstats (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oversized; currently at 193 568 entries. There are others that belong here that aren't stub tagged, and there are other known ghost town articles that still need to be created as per List of ghost towns in Manitoba and List of ghost towns in Colorado. Therefore, I recommend the following:
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- 193 is hardly oversized (Good knows what you would call Cat:Asteroid stubs), though I agree I have seen many articles in US/CAN that could use this and don't so would support templates for US/CAN and possibly California and categories for them once they pass 60. Waacstats (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned, there were quite a few articles categorized as ghost towns who had other stub tags, but no ghost-town-stub tags. I'm working on that tagging process and I've changed the count accordingly. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- As long as you don't remove the others (if they're relevant, of course) - I wouldn't want to see, for instance, a ghost town in South Australia marked with ghost-town-stub but not also marked with SouthAustralia-geo-stub. Actually, if we're going to start breaking out national ghost town stubs, Australia would be a reasonable one to add to the list. But yeah, 193 (and even 253) is nowhere near oversized (in fact, it's pretty close to the "sweet spot" for stub category size) - we don't normally start thinking of splitting things until they reach the 600-800 area. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It hink if your going to keep pudhing this upit may be an idea to create the templates now save having to sort twice
- Yup, Waacstats, good idea. So the Canada, US, and California templates are in place and I've updated above the number of articles that use these 3 template tags. Also created {{Australia-ghost-town-stub}}. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Numbers update.--Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support, obvious solution to an oversized category and template. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. Himalayan 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oversized: 979 stubs. There are some sub-categories, in addition to those I propose the following:
It might not be a bad idea to just have stubs types for each of the sub-categories of computer science (about 21 in total). --Robin (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The idea of 21 separate templates might be good, but I doubt all 21 would reach the 60 stub mark for separate categories at the moment. It may be easier to work on a case-by-case basis. As to the two you've proposed above they both look fine, but the second needs a tweak of name - I'd go for Cat:Algorithm stubs (singular, per stub naming conventions) and {{algorithm-stub}} (avoiding the potentially ambiguous abbreviation). It might also be better to have the first's template (or a redirect to it) at {{comp-sci-theory-stub}}, since there are (IIRC) several other "theory" types all in that format. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- Alright, I've modified my proposal. --Robin (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- The 60-something rule is clearly not always obeyed, nor is it part of any page baring even "guideline" status at the top, let alone "policy". For instance, check out Category:Mathematics stub templates, e.g. Template:Math-competition-stub. Template stubs should be created whenever a category is sufficiently distinct so that tagging with something-else-stub looks weird, especially when the category with which the stubs are associated naturally belongs to more than one parent category. Otherwise you need to either pick a potentially uninformative stub or "multi-stub" an article, which looks equally grotesque, although I've seen that done too. Pcap ping 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oversized; currently at 963 entries. Following the naming convention of Cat:Nova Scotia geography stubs subcategories, I recommend the following:
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support in principal with splitting Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Newfoudland and Labrador. Unfortunatly none of these have categories so can't work out any numbers and most articles don't state which area they are in so may proove difficult for those of us outside the areas to do. Waacstats (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought that you ment other regions of Canada. That's why the lng list. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Support Good find Rosie. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- To be honest, not much of a find. As I've created many of the Nunavut geo stubs, it's been gnawing on me to also deal with the splitting... kinda like the responsible thing to do. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. With regard to N&L, it may be worth noting that Labrador-geo-stub is already used as a redirect. Not sure whether it's an officially designated subregion, but if so, making it into a stand-alone template might help alleviate things a little. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oversized, catscan suggegsts the following would be viable
